Steve, you and Paolo make some good points. Except for dedicated Avid systems (Thunder, Composer, etc.) the editing side has not kept up with the hardware side that's for sure (and even then, those Avid system are clunky with DV sources -- even worse with Blu-ray).

So, does that mean I won't be able to bring my HD footage into my Morrow CP/M?

I'm sure XpressPro has already lost the war to FCP and is likely to loose even more now that Adobe has Studio -- it does seem Avid might realize the Xpress GUI is simply never going to make Premiere or FCP editors happy while equally frustrating Composer editors. That's a lose, lose, lose, lose proposition for them.

Much smarter to keep the software Composer at $3000-$4000 ($5000 is crazy IMHO and I think they'll keep seeing sales go to FCP if they don't drop it -- soon. In fact, they may get very few sales at $5000.)

Then use Liquid to go after FCP and Premiere. Liquid is more powerful than either, but Avid needs to de-Germanize it plus support auto HD Timeline to SD DVD conversion, and add HD Timeline to Blu-ray burning.

I found another new Liquid term. One uses a "Clip" FX (which is really a "filter") for clip "alienation." Anyone want to guess what this means? (And, no it doesn't mean creating a depressed looking clip.)

I even found, in the "Avid" manual a reference to the TARGA board. Clearly, Avid never bothered to even edit the manual. They just changed "Pinnacle" to "Avid." And, worse, they don't ship the vital Reference Manual with Liquid.

New documentation is critical -- the two chapters on FX are muddled to say the least. Plus, you can see any detail in the screenshots!

this is a great thread. very informative.

thanks guys.

It was hijacked from me and turned into a all-purpose thread!

just kidding, all good stuff!

but I still don't know what I want, lol

-burk

4:2:2 on the JVC?
 

Hi guys,

About to take the plunge myself and still trying to choose between the JVC and the Panasonic. I am "an editor" more than videographer, and while this will have to be an all-purpose camera until we get enough revenue to justify a second (maybe a RED? :)), I will probably use it equally for greenscreen work as for documentary-style work (for which I'll likely get an M2 adapter).

I've done some greenscreen work with standard-def DV, and it ain't fun. I know the codec used by the HD100 and its successors is better by leaps and bounds, but how much better? I also heard someone mention that you can run analog cables out the back for a live 4:2:2 capture, but could anyone elaborate on the details of this setup?

My NLE is Final Cut, and I don't think we can set up the whole workstation in the greenscreen studio, so I'm wondering about MacBook Pros -- are there any cards available for the MBP that would work for this purpose?

Or, alternately, should I just go for the HVX? The CinePorter (if it passes muster upon release) pretty much knocks out the cost issues of the P2 system, and I could get a Spider Brace or other shoulder mount to help the form factor. Also, since I plan to get an M2, the interchangeable lens feature of the JVC doesn't help much (and until someone makes a relay lens, it's actually a hindrance). So I just don't know...

Any help/advice is appreciated!

In your case I'd probably lean toward the HVX unless the HD-100 has gotten easier to edit in FCP recently. With the HD-100 you pretty much have to convert to the Cineform intermediate codec, but once you've done that you're in a great codec. It's PC only the last time I checked.

I've actually owned both cameras and I preferred the usability and picture of the HD-100 so that's the one I kept and I adapted my editing software to suit the camera. I have the Micro35 and I think it's easier to shoot with the HD-100 due to it's being a better low light performer... but it is long. The HVX is fat though, so it's 6 of one and half dozen of the other really.

As far as greenscreen, it's probably a toss up. The HVX is noisier so that mucks up keying a little bit. The HD-100 has more resolution which translates to more edge detail (good) but you also do get some edge jaggies due to HDV recording. Those can be smoothed in post if you know what you're doing and you can pull a good key, but it's a little extra work. The HVX is smooth on the edges, but noisier shadows might mean more work.

The best keying would probably be an HD-100 via component to Cineform capture at 4:2:2 - but that adds about $3k and it's PC only.

Good keying depends a lot on the person / software doing the keying. I've seen F950 plates at 4:4:4 that people can't pull a very good key from because keying isn't really point and click even with Keylight or Primatte - which are very good keyers.

If you can test both cameras that's your best option.

Thanks for the prompt reply!

Not yet, but an update is supposed to be in the pipeline -- imminent, even -- that lets FCP support 24p, so that's not a huge issue.

I'm surprised to hear that, actually. I would have guessed the HVX was much better for green screen work due to the DVCPRO codec (and that maybe even the lower pixel density on the 1/3" chip would translate to less noise).

That's the solution I'm looking for ('cept I'd want to stick with FCP once the update hits), but I would need a component card for a MacBook Pro's ExpressCard slot, which I don't think exist yet.

Thanks again for your advice. The cameras were neck and neck, but the HD100 (or 110, or 200 if I can wait that long) may be inching ahead. :)